Vorengard

How dare you try and set down expectations for behavior! You don't get to make those decisions, you GAME NAZI! Ok, all kidding aside (sorry I just couldn't resist), I like this idea. It's precisely what I was trying to get at in my own post. But apparently that's just not ok for some people. A community standard for what an NAP means would make that sort of negotiation so much easier, so we don't have to basically draw up legal documents every time we do diplomacy with another organization. EVE benefits a lot from this because I can go to another alliance and as for a Structure NAP and they'll know what I'm talking about right away, whereas you can propose something similar in other games and people get all confused.

Who decides what it means to be a douche though? You? How do I know what you're standards are of you don't express them? That's what I'm asking about: What would most people consider to be unacceptable, and what is no big deal. DU is going to require vastly more cooperation and community cohesion that any game before to be truly successful, and that requires some basic understanding of what constitutes abuse, and what's just me killing people because pretty splosions.

This is an absurd argument. Expectations do not require enforcement, I certainly wont be deciding who does what, and the idea that such an agreement ultimately limits freedom is baseless. I believe in creating a community that is enjoyable and doesn't ruin the game. This is critical in DU because there's huge potential for abuse and griefing, even worse so than EVE because the "safe zone" is so much more limited. Or you can just abuse everyone all the time, as you clearly intend to do, and we can have another toxic mess of a community that ultimately kills the game like what's happening to EVE right now. Your choice. The idea that "playing how you like to play" necessitates being a total dick to everyone is the reason EVE is a toxic wasteland. It's the reason the Rainbow 6 Siege community literally causes cancer. You can sit on your high horse of arrogance and selfishness, but in the end that kind of attitude will destroy the community, and by extension the game. "Not being a total dick" isn't a restriction of your freedom, and plot twist, MMOs need good communities to survive. This is what I'm looking for.

Of course there will be a central trade hub at the Arkship, because it's the only place in the game where assets will be truly, irrevocably safe. I have no doubt that a single entity will attempt to gain a controlling interest in that space, and this will give them serous power. They don't even have to control most of the available area, they simply have to have the biggest market share. Jita isn't Jita because it's special, it's Jita because of momentum. It's just harder to conduct business anywhere else, so people flock there, because convenience is king. Even more so in a video game. \ You are much more optimistic than I am. I never count on any group of people to be intrinsically good, least of all anyone in a video game. How many Chribbas are there in EVE? Exactly one, and everyone still banded together to kill all his stuff because reasons. No, trust the community to just work out well by itself is foolish. That's what CCP did, and it got us EVE, the most toxic community there is.... except maybe the people Rainbow 6 Siege lol

I would imagine that one of the primary motivators in DU will be economic. That is to say that, since markets are all player run and controlled, if you are constantly attacking people you will lose the right to trade in their markets. For EVE players, imagine an entire organization being litteraly locked out of Jita. In DU, that's entirely possible, even likely. Because of this, it would probably be in everyone's best interest to limit combat in most circumstances, or to certain cases only. As a community, we should develop some codes of conduct for how people are expected to behave. This is really important given that 99% of the game will be a PvP zone. I really don't want DU to have a community like EVE, where the strong murder the weak with impunity constantly (speaking as one of those strong people's btw lol). In EVE you could escape that in many cases. In DU you won't be able to, and that could seriously hamper the game's growth.

This post raises a couple important issues that I dont think have been mentioned yet. For instance, regardless of the system you choose to deal with abandoned ships, how do you stop people from intentionally parking ships in front of buildings to block entrances? Also, while the idea of hangers has been mentioned, what about ships that are massive like some of the ones shown in the gameplay videos? You couldn't feasibly build a hanger for something that big, nevermind several ships that big. What happens to a person's ships if they go on vacation for a week or so? There needs to be a mechanism to keep those ships safe. Some people have mentioned the idea of fines or towing fees for abandoned ships, but should people be penalized in game for real life vacations or family emergencies? The obvious solution is to tie safety to the territory control mechanism, but if territory control is going to be expensive then that's a poor solution for most people.

I think some people are missing the point; which is that the lack of space combat at release will turn some people away by default. It won't matter if players won't be able to build ships capable of CvC for months after release, the fact that it's an option will be a draw for some people. If you take that possibility away then those people will never give the game a second look. They'll see "no combat" - and even if the next word is "yet" or "soon" it wont matter, because they are drawn to combat games. In a post No Man's Sky world people are afraid to be optimistic, and they're predisposed to not trusting any game that looks anything like NMS. From the surface, DU looks a lot like NMS. So the phrase "soon" will be met with instant distrust. I hope the Devs at NQ understand this and have some plan to deal with that inevitable reaction. I've already seen at least one rant video on youtube about how this game is just another money trap like NMS was, and that's only going to get worse as time goes on.

You can't make any assumptions based on people being either rational or cooperative. The months between launch and when we'll first be in a position to build space stations is plenty of time for rivalries and animosity to grow. Do you actually expect us to believe that you'll stand by and do nothing while your arch enemy organization builds a grand space station and profits off of it "because its good for the game?" Maybe I'm a horrible cynic, but in my experience people are not like that, especially in a video game.

I don't mean to be Debbie downer here, but if multiple organizations are planning the same thing already, then you'll have to reconcile all those people and get them working together if you want to succeed. This idea would probably be more successful if there was a single person in charge that everyone trusted to run the thing fairly, like Chribba in EVE. Otherwise there will always be something to gain for someone by messing with the project, starting a competing industry, etc.

Additionally, I agree with the above statement that CvC will require a massive amount of balance that should be done prior to launch. I've had enough experiences with totally unbalanced ship designs and capabilities in EVE. It has serious negative effects on the community and the game as a whole.

That hardly seems necessary. My complaint is no CvC at launch. The obvious solution is to add CvC at launch. That seemed rather self explanatory. Or are you suggesting that I should be directly telling the Devs how to make their own game?

In response to Danger's comment; I dont disagree with you on any one point. However, you seem to be missing both the tone of this thread and the purposes of a forum like this one. I did not start this thread to whine about the game and make everyone think it was doomed. I started it to make sure that there is a record of a very legitimate concern that many in the community share. That is the whole purpose of alpha forums after all; to make sure the community shares how it feels about current development plans. I think you're making a huge mistake by taking the position that skepticism is somehow wrong, or that we should keep our mouths shut about what we consider to be potential problems. That doesn't actually help anyone.

To clarify, I expect to be playing the game regardless of the inclusion of combat at launch. My biggest concern is getting lots of other people to play in the face of that potential absence. I would be happy with anything at launch, because like the Devs, I expect this to be a game that starts small and simple and progresses to something special. If all we get is 2 guns and a basic HP bar, that will still be better than nothing, because the point of DU seems to be very heavily focused on building amazing things, not on destroying things. I accept that premise. I welcome it even. But creations, be it a building, a ship, or a community, are made truly valuable by standing in the face of adversity. EVE taught me that. By removing adversity, even if only for "a while" as stated by the devs, you reduce the value of player accomplishments. That's why combat matters so much to me.

Ok, I'll bite. You were literally asking the devs to give you, personally, a reason to back their kickstarter. Do I need to point out how radically different our positions are? You, asking for personal justification with no investment; me pointing out a perceived future problem with the game having already pledged my support for the game. Either way, it makes no difference. We both agree with elements of both posts. So perhaps we can both go back to discussing the merits of this particular problem instead of attacking each other? The point is that I disagree with this approach. NQ can go forward in whatever way they choose. I neither need nor expect a reply, but the whole point of this forums, or a community in general, is to express their opinions about the game. I have expressed mine because I know 2 other backers (both Ruby supporters) whose plans for this game revolve entirely around combat. I doubt they would continue their support if they knew combat was not going to be a part of the game at launch, which it will not be unless we find another $210,000 in 18 days. This is justifiable skepticism, not arm-flailing panic.

My purpose is to make it clear how big of a mistake I think this strategy is. I genuinely believe that this is a serious error, and the whole purpose of this forum is to voice our opinions about the direction of the game. Sitting here, saying nothing and just hoping everything will work out all right is completely unhelpful. As to your last comment And I have been nothing but supportive of the game in multiple places in this post alone; so if you're going to make accusation, please do your research first. You can disagree with me without being nasty about it. I am not causing a panic, I am expressing a legitimate concern about a legitimate problem. That being said, I absolutely appreciate the Devs honesty in this matter, and I respect their commitment to telling us the truth even if we won't like it.

I'm really surprised by how completely unconcerned you are about this. You can't publish a space game under the guise of "one day we'll have combat." Sure, I believe the Devs when they say that. But how long will it take, and what happens to the game in the mean time? These are serious questions that I think we need answers to, and it absolutely makes the game harder to sell.

What kind of space game doesn't have space ship combat? Yes, I know the answer to that question, but the vast majority of people don't. They will see a game with pacifist space ships and say "what the heck, this game sucks, why can't I put guns on my spaceship?" And, from a limited perspective, they will have a point. Launching the game without combat will be just as bad as launching the game in Alpha state. It will feel unfinished because it will be unfinished. I don't want to play a space ship game with spaceships that can't blow each other up, especially given the overwhelming number of competitors that will have this feature. I cannot express with words how much launching without ship combat will hurt the future of this game. I mention NMS because it will be the first game to come to people's minds when they hear about DU. As soon as they hear the phrase "limitless universe" they'll say "oh no, I fell for this once and I am NOT going to go there again!" Du will have to overcome the massive distrust and negativity that is the specter of No Man's Sky, and "not talking about it" will not make that problem go away. You can stick your head in the sand all you want, but these are real issues for a lot of people, and we need to talk about them right now, not after launch when it's already too late. Hopefully we reach the stretch goal and this whole thing becomes irrelevant, but as of right now the Kickstarter has earned less than $5,000 in the last 24 hours, so something is clearly wrong.

Let me start by saying that I'm very excited about this game, I've backed it from day 1 of the Kickstarter, and I've been promoting it to everyone who will listen ever since. I very much want this project to succeed. That being said, the idea that PvP might not be included in the launch of the game is a very serious negative for me and any other player whose main gameplay in MMOs is PvP. I have no doubt that such an absence of combat will turn off a lot of people just on principal. Building games are all well and good, but DU isn't setting out to be a prettier Minecraft, or a PvE-only Space Engineers. If DU wants to be, as the Devs say, "the next best Sci-Fi MMORPG" then it cannot launch without a combat system. For example: I can run around for hours in The Witcher 3 just playing Gwent and exploring because those are all fun and enjoyable experiences; but if the game didn't have combat in it I never would have bought it in the first place, because combat is an essential part of every RPG. The fate of Dual Universe will largely hinge on the review scores it receives at launch, and if there is no combat then you can bet that every single one of those reviews will reflect strongly on that absence. You do not get a second chance at a first impression, and DU's first impression can't be as another half-baked, all-promise-no-delivery No Mans Sky clone. It's not good enough for combat to show up "eventually", it has to be there at launch, and it has to be at least decent. Just thinking of the 100 or so people in my EVE corp, it wont matter how good the game is; if there's no combat they won't even give it a second look. I want this game to succeed too much to ignore what I consider to be a failure-inducing design decision. Thoughts?

If you think the only things worth fighting over in a game are actual money and its real-world equivalent, then I've got some news for you... No, but seriously. EVE has this mechanic, and a tiny fraction of the game play has anything to do with PLEX thefts, ganks, or plans to engage in such. Yes there are people who do this, but not very many of them. Their successes are few and far between, and if the ability to move PLEX was removed the game would not suffer very much. I wish DACs were actual objects, but I'm not going to spend any time crying about the fact that they're not.

Well if you can't be asked to contribute based on what you see then I see no reason why the dev team should bend over backwards to make you happy. I agree, the Devs should be doing more to show off their game. I would like to see some footage, I would like to see some examples of what you can build beyond the three things from the videos. But I don't need to have those things to back the game because I'm not a horrible cynic. Also, coming onto the forums essentially trying to bait the devs into pandering to you is in rather poor form.

When I heard this statement I took it to mean that NPCs would not be selling any goods. I assumed that since they are providing the game currency they would also provide some form of global market structure that is immediately accessible by the players with taxes and fees levied as monetary sinks, like in EVE Online. Say what you want about EVE, but their market structure is the more life-like and vibrant than any game out there. I would vastly prefer a similar approach, as opposed to one where players can prevent people from trading (through means other than by blowing up their ships of course.)

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. But the obvious solution is to have regional (perhaps in this case system) wide markets that are run as an extension of the game itself, like in EVE Online. Then we can avoid all of the issues you and I just stated.

If anyone can build a market anywhere without a significant input of resources then what's the point of being able to control one anyhow? Why wouldn't I then just build my own market with 0% sales tax? Which would reduce the system to either a meaningless step in the process, or to a barrier all people would have to reach to participate. Face it, no matter how you frame it, direct player control of markets is at best pointless and at worst game-breaking.

Sure, space is theoretically infinite, but it will take stargates to get to those stars, and stargates are expensive and take a long time to build, according to the devs. So space will be limited to those system that have stargates. This isn't No Man's Sky where you can just fly anywhere virtually for free. Besides, you don't have to control all the resources to be in control, you just have to control the ability to sell them. For example: buy a huge amount of basic resources, then jack up the listing price for your market to 1000% of the sale value. Now everyone has to pay 10x the value of their sale price just to put their goods on market, which is obviously unsustainable and nobody would list any goods. So the entire economy stops. But you, the market owner, don't care because you saw this coming and you've got a huge surplus of minerals to last you through. Or, even worse, you can now list your goods for free because the cost of the list price just goes right back into your own pocket. So now you can buy all the minerals off everyone else directly at whatever price you want (because they can't use the market so they have no choice) and then re-list them for any price with no competition because you're the only person who can afford to use your market. Instant monopoly, and the only solution would be to leave. But what happens if you get so rich you can take over all (or even most) the market, especially the market at the starting zone? At the end of the day, there's so much room for game breaking exploits; and even if the game doesn't break it's still radically un-fun game play and shouldn't be allowed. Giving a single person the ability to dick everyone over on a whim is a terrible, terrible idea, no matter how "realistic" it might be, or how much you might want it to happen.

TL;DR - Markets themselves should not be owned or run by people. Control of a market should come from owning the goods for sale and the property used to store and transport those goods . I don't think giving players the ability to regulate things like sales tax is a good game play decision. All realism aside here, allowing the "market" owners to decide what people pay in taxes, especially for individual goods, is a recipe for a broken economy. Just think for a second about all the possible exploits, manipulations, and just plain griefing that could be done with such power. What happens when someone buys all the stores in a system (or, heaven forbid, multiple systems) and starts charging everyone 50% sales tax? Another example: you're at war with Group A, who primarily flies ships that use a ton of component X, so just increase the sales tax on that component to 1000% and voila, their entire doctrine is worthless because they can't afford to buy the parts/materials they need for those ships. Things like that might be fun for the 2-3 people who own markets, but it's absolute garbage for the rest of us. That's why I think it's a huge mistake, game-play-wise, to allow players to control things like sales tax and transaction tax. That being said, players should absolutely have the power to regulate other important things, like docking fees, storage fees, etc. I think the most money in DU will be made by people who own property and access to specific valuable spaces. In a world where goods need to be moved, and resources at locations are finite, the most money will be made by shipping agencies and the mercenaries who protect them. If you guys want to control the market, I'd suggest building tons of huge warehouses that people can rent in close proximity to major trade hubs. Then start hiring people to move things, and as mercenaries to protect people moving things. Eventually, you'll have a major market share because you'll own all the implements for getting things to market.